Digitally signed

Dr Z by Joseph H
Zernik
Joseph Zernik, PhD DN: cn=Joseph H
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@e
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; arthlink.net, c=US
Location: La
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Verne, California
Date: 2010.03.23
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs 06:02:33 -07'00'

10-03-23 UN Periodic Universal Review of Human Rights –

Draft Outline: Los Angeles County, California, Human Rights Report

In moving forward on the matter of the submissions to the UN, please consider the following suggestions for
collaborations:

I. COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS RE: SUBMISSIONS, AND SEARCH FOR A SPONSOR NGO

To save time and efforts, collaborations are sought with any individuals or NGOs, who are planning to submit for
the UN Universal Periodic Review. Such collaboration can be simply at the level of sharing information
regarding procedures, deadlines, etc, or could progress into sharing opinions of the desired format of the
submissions, exchange of drafts and exchanging suggestions for improvements.
It would also be desired to find an NGO, which would be willing to endorse such submissions. However, given
the experience with OAK, and NFOJA, it would probably be prudent to retain the submissions as independent,
by individuals.

II. PROPOSED DRAFT OUTLINE: LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT
Following is a proposed outline for a Los Angeles County, California, Human Rights Report. Collaborations are
sought in efforts to produce a report focusing on Los Angeles County, California, and the following tightly related
matters. In all such matters, requests were filed with high level law enforcement or US Department of Justice
authorities. However, in all such cases, equal protection of the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County was
so far denied:
A. The case of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons). [1]
B. The case of Richard Fine [4]
C. Large-scale, long term denial of access to court records - to inspect and to copy
D. Refusal of the US and California Governments to Enforce Honest, Valid, and Effectual
Banking Regulation

A. The case of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons). [1]

PSB Frontline [2] estimated between 8,000 - 16,000 thousand persons, almost elusively black and latinos,
about a third of them still juveniles at that time (1998-2000), who were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced to
long prison terms, in what was similar to the current "cash for kids" scandal in Luzerne County, PA. However, in
Los Angeles, a decade later, only 200 of them, at most, were released. A government report in 2006 - the Blue
Ribbon Review panel (2006) [3] concluded "innocent people remain in prison". It also documented that police,
prosecutors, and the judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court, in concerted conduct, prevent the release of the
victims. The Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended an "external investigation", which the US agencies are
refusing to institute. FBI and US DOJ, through years of complaints and requests refused to take any action in
this regard.

B. The case of Richard Fine [4]

Richard Fine - 70-year old former US prosecutor - has been held in solitary confinement in a hospital room for
over a year, following his central role in exposing that ALL judges of Los Angeles County took "not permitted"
payments of ~$47,000 per judge, per year (which still go on today). On February 20, 2009, the California
Governor signed dubious "retroactive immunities" to all such judges, in a state where the Constitution prohibited
retroactive laws. On March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was taken by the Sheriff's Department Warrant Detail - all be it
- with no warrant and with no conviction/judgment/sentencing ever entered at all. Richard Fine has been held by
the Sheriff ever since.

1. The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles repeatedly denied access to the Register
of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. vs County of L.A. Marina v LA
County (BS109420) - the case in ancillary proceedings of which Richard Fine was purported to have been
arrested and imprisoned. The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, also repeatedly denied
requests to access the Book of Judgments, a quintessential safeguard for the integrity of the courts, which was
z Page 2/4 March 23, 2010

required by the California Code, and which the Local Rules of Court stated was kept in the Clerk's Department
of each District of the Court. The Deputy Clerks and Supervisors at the Districts claimed that no Books of
Judgments existed for some 25 years. The California Code and Local Rules of Court required to enter in such
Books of Judgments Court orders and judgments, which otherwise remained ineffectual for any practical
purpose.

Absent Books of Judgments, the entry of court orders and judgments was rendered vague and ambiguous. It
was alleged that none of the orders and judgments in Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. vs County of
L.A. Marina v LA County (BS109420), was ever entered. Therefore, none of the orders and judgments were
valid and effectual for any purpose.

2. The Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County insisted on posting in its online Inmate Information
Center false records, listing the arrest and booking of Richard fine, as having taken place at the San Pedro
Municipal Court, which does not exist any longer for almost a decade. Media reports clearly established the
arrest to have been conducted at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in the Central District
Courthouse, City of Los Angeles. Furthermore, the Sheriff's Unit of the small, Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, San Pedro Annex, denied that it operated a booking terminal, and it also denied that
Richard Fine or anybody else was booked there on March 4, 2009. The Sheriff's Department repeatedly denied
requests to access the arrest and booking records, pursuant to California Public Records Act.

3. The US District Court, Los Angeles, in the petition for habeas corpus of Attorney Richard Fine -
Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-1914) - engaged in alleged fraud in conduct of the
litigation, effectively denying Richard Fine access to the Court:
a) According to Richard Fine, none of the Court's orders and judgments in the case were
authenticated by an accompanying honest, valid, and effectual digital signatures in the
respective Notices of Electronic Filings.
b) It was additionally alleged that Attorney Kevin McCormick, who appeared in the case on behalf
of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and Richard Fine, failed to file the
required certifications, and was not authorized by such parties to appear on their behalf as
Counsel of Record under the caption Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-
1914).
c) It was alleged that Attorney Kevin McCormick filed false briefs, declarations, and documentary
evidence in the case, where he was not competent fact witness, with no signature by the
responsible parties - Judge David Yaffe, and Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.
d) The Judicial Counsel of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, has recently confirmed
that Attorney McCormick was retained by it, and not by Judge David Yaffe, or the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles.
e) In addition, the California Judicial Council, through four (4) reiterations of such facts, responded
with three letters so far, none of which included full and correct, honest and valid listing of the
respective court caption at the US District Court, Los Angeles. Response on the final repeat of
the request was still pending.
f) The US District Court, Los Angeles denied access to inspect and to copy the NEFs (Notices of
Electronic Filings) in the case, which was requested pursuant to First Amendment rights, and
Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).
g) Moreover, the Clerk of the US District Court, Los Angeles, refused to certify the PACER docket
in Fine v Sheriff of LA as a docket that was an honest, valid, and effectual court records, which
was established pursuant to the US law.
h) The Clerk of the US of the US District Court, Los Angeles, denied access to the commencing
record in the case - the March 20, 2009 Petition by Richard Fine. the Clerk of the Court also
refused to investigation and respond on complaint of dishonest manipulations of the
commencing records and the docket by Donna Thomas, who was not authorized as a Deputy
Clerk, but conducted various transactions in the docket.

4. The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - posted in its online PACER docket the June 2009 Petition -
under Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-71692) - by Richard Fine. The Petition originated from his
Petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus at the US District Court, Los Angeles. However, it was alleged that the
US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, never deemed the June 2009 Petition as entered. Accordingly, a June 30,
z Page 3/4 March 23, 2010

2009, Order Denying the Petition, was issued by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and Circuit Judges Richard
Tallman and Richard Paez, stating:
"Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of
the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.
1977). The petition is denied."
Such denial order was not verified by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, neither was it verified by Circuit Judges
Richard Paez and Richard Tallman. The June 30, 2009 Order was served with no attestation by the Clerk -
neither an NEF (notice of Electronic Filing), not Certificate of Service.

It was alleged that the coordinated multiple instances of fraud and obstruction, amounting to false imprisonment,
were undertaken by the four agencies of the justice system, listed above, in a coordinated fashion. It was also
suggested that the four agencies demonstrated the same pattern of conduct: Invalid records were posted in
online dockets and "Inmate Information Center", which included no verification or authentication, and no
individual accountability regarding integrity of the online court records. In contrast, in all four cases, the
agencies maintained an alternative case management systems, which included explicit RSA-encrypted digital
signatures, but where public access was denied. It was further alleged that installation of the public access
(PACER) and case management/ court electronic filing (CM/ECF) systems at the US courts, with no publicly
accountable validation, led to material deterioration in integrity of the courts.

5. The proposed solution - would include:

a) Publicly accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification) of the public access
(PACER) and case management/ court electronic filing (CM/ECF) systems at the US and state
courts.
b) Enforcement of US and state Rule Making Enabling Acts - to ensure Local Rules of Courts that
were valid and conformed with the practices and procedures employed by the courts following
introduction of case management systems.

C. Large-scale, long term denial of access to court records - to inspect and to copy
The evidence is overwhelming for racketeering of racketeering by judges, of the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles. Such racketeering was subject of complaints to the US Justice Department. However,
senior officers at FBI and US Department of Justice refused to accord the 10 million residents of Los Angeles
County equal protection, even after repeated inquiries by US Congress. Moreover, complaint - currently pending
before the US Department of Justice Inspector General - which was submitted in later 2009, alleged fraud in
responses of the senior US Department of Justice officers on the US Congress in 2008. Again, Congressional
Inquiries were issued by US Congress on the US Department of Justice Inspector General office, to request
response on the complaints.

Already in 2008, the complaints of racketeering by judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, focused attention on the widespread Denial of Access to court records, to inspect and to copy. The
evidence showed that such Denial of Access, in disregard of First Amendment rights and Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978), was the enabling tool of the racket, and that it was was related to the installation of
public access and case management/ electronic filing systems at the courts. While access was denied to the
true and correct records, secondary records were posted in online public access system, which lacked publicly-
accountable validation.

Such racketeering was alleged, and evidence was provided in the following instances:

1. Ongoing alleged false imprisonment of Richard Fine, with no legal foundation for the confinement.

2. The refusal to release of the thousands of Rampart-FIPs.

3. Numerous cases of real estate fraud: under the guise of real estate litigations, and refusal to initiate
corrective actions, even after the corruption and perversion of justice were carefully and credibly documented,
and fraud in conduct of the court was opined by nationally renown fraud experts.

4. Ongoing payments by Los Angeles County to the judges of the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles: even after such payments were ruled "not permitted". Such payments were accompanied by
establishment of conditions where it was impossible to win a case against the County of Los Angeles in Los
z Page 4/4 March 23, 2010

Angeles County. Such payments and such established conditions, required the issuance of "retroactive
immunities" of dubious legal validity.

5. Refusal to initiate review of cases involving the County of Los Angeles, during the years of the "not
permitted" payments.

6. Obstruction and perversion of the litigation in Sturgeon v County of Los Angeles (BC351286) - at
the Los Angeles Superior Court, where:

a) The Court denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket),
b) Judgments were inadequately entered, and
c) Nowhere to be fined is an answer to the foundation of the conduct of Justice James A Richman
in the case (he was listed simultaneously as a judge and a referee).

7. The key records, where access is today denied were:

a) Registers of Actions (California civil dockets)

b) Criminal Dockets
c) Books of Judgments
d) Index of All Cases
e) Calendars of the Courts
f) NEFs at the US District Court, Los Angeles
g) NEFs or equivalent at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.

The solution, which was proposed already in 2008, was founded in the appointment of a Special Counsel
pursuant to 28 CFR 600 for a limited term, limited mandate - to investigate, and if necessary - to prosecute
those who deny public access to court records. Through such efforts, it was claimed that access could be re-
established, at minimal cost, at least on court locations (vis a vis online remote access) within 1-2 weeks from
the date of appointment of the Special Counsel.

It was suggested that such initiative would lead to immediate paralyzing of the racketeering at the courts,
immediate end to racketeering in real estate litigations. Moreover, the restoration of First Amendment rights to
access court records - to inspect and to copy - would allow the immediate release of Richard Fine, and speedy
release to the thousands of Rampart-FIPs.

It was alleged that continued refusal of the US Department of Justice to engage even in such careful
circumscribed, clearly delineated effort to restore the fundamental Human, Constitutional, and Civil rights in Los
Angeles County, amounted to severe abuse of the Human Rights of the 10 million residents of the County, and
de facto consent by the US government to racketeering by judges of the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles.

D. Refusal of the US and California Governments to Enforce Honest, Valid, and Effectual Banking
Regulation
Under the current financial crisis, which deprived millions of US residents of their possessions, the US
government allowed widespread fraud and other criminal conduct by large financial institutions. The US made
pretense of Banking Regulation through a number of agencies, including SEC, Office of Comptroller of the
Currency, Thrift Supervision, Federal Trade Commission, and Federal Reserve Board. However, in fact, all
such agencies, and also FBI and US Dept of Justice, refused to enforce the law on banking institutions,
including Bank of America Corporation, recipient of $200 billions in taxpayers bailout funds.
Such conduct not only violated Human Rights pursuant to the Declaration, but also the duties of the US
pursuant to the Basel Accords on international banking, where the US is claimed to be a good faith party.